dividual perceptual ideas, and also to the formation of accurate statements of conceptual notions. Oftentimes teaching proceeds carefully enough in details, but stops short of concept forming and concept stating. The statement of the concept is the symbolic representation of the concept and stands for the whole complex of ideas connoted in the concept. The mind does not need to go over all the details, but is satisfied with the symbol, much as one is satisfied with a bank-note which only represents wealth. These trains of thought which can be imagined or built up through actual perception can be carried on without the use of language. But even in ideas that can be perceived or represented through imagery words play a most important rôle. Classification of ideas cannot progress far without recourse to words. All the parts of speech represent classified ideas. No matter whether a word is a common noun, a verb, or an adjective, it represents a complex idea which is brought together under the general class and ticketed with a symbol. These processes of acquiring, arranging, and conserving knowledge are all processes of association. The laws governing them must be understood and followed if education proceeds economically and wisely. CHAPTER XV THE WISE USE AND TRAINING OF MEMORY UPON few other technical questions is the layman so willing to deliver opinions as upon methods of improving memory. He does not feel it hazardous to do so, but regards his conclusions as incontrovertible. The usual advice is to memorize much, verbatim and mechanically. Set apart a portion of every day for committing verses, proverbs, speeches, or strings of dates. It is asserted that the gymnastics thus used will strengthen the memory, not only in the particular direction, but also equally as much in all other directions. It is assumed that the memory is a general power, capable of memorizing anything when once developed. On this theory "the memory organ" might be likened to a muscle, the fibre of which can be strengthened by general gymnastics. Let us investigate to ascertain the facts which have a bearing upon the question. Biological Interpretation.—In the first place, there is no single power of memory which memorizes everything. There is no receptacle which stores all facts of life with equal fidelity. Memory is a dynamic condition produced through experience. It consists of functional relations established in the physical organism or in the mind, which may be awakened by appropriate stimuli. It is more appropriate to speak of memories than memory. This view is then opposed to the theory of general improvement through special training. James says that retention "is a purely physical phenomenon, a morphological feature, the presence of these 'paths,' namely, in the finest recesses of the brain's tissue." And further, "memory being thus altogether conditioned on brain paths, its excellence in a given individual will depend partly on the number and partly on the persistence of these paths. The persistence or permanence of the paths is a physiological property of the brain-tissue of the individual, whilst their number is altogether due to the facts of his mental experience. Let the quality of permanence in the paths be called the native tenacity, or physiological retentiveness. This tenacity differs enormously from infancy to old age, and from one person to another. Some minds are like wax under a seal -no impression, however disconnected with others, is wiped out. Others, like a jelly, vibrate to every touch, but under usual conditions retain no permanent mark."1 Lloyd Morgan says: "Retentiveness is, in fact, to a large extent a psycho-physiological datum; something given in the brain-structure and mental character of each individual; something which we can no more alter than we can alter the size of our heads, or to take what is perhaps a closer analogy, the size of our muscles. By careful use and training we may develop our muscles within the limits assigned to them by nature. So, too, by careful exercise we may perhaps develop our retentiveness within the limits assigned to it by nature." One of the most important discoveries concerning the memory, therefore, is that the native capacity for retentiveness in a given individual is unchangeable by training, and is only modifiable by a change of health, by changes in nutrition, and by changes incident to growth and development at different ages. This statement is not intended to mean that one cannot improve certain factors of memory, or that memory as a means of acquisition cannot be greatly enhanced. But the mere capacity for conserving impressions of a given intensity, duration, and without associations cannot be increased by training. This hypothesis has been tested at several times and seems now to be well established as a fact. Experimental Evidence.-Professor James mentions several experiments that were made in testing the validity of this hypothesis. He says: "In order to test the opinion so confidently 1 Principles of Psychology, I, pp. 655, 659. expressed in the text, I have tried to see whether a certain amount of daily training in learning poetry by heart will shorten the time it takes to learn an entirely different kind of poetry. During eight successive days I learned 158 lines of Victor Hugo's 'Satyr.' The total number of minutes required for this was 131%-it should be said that I had learned nothing by heart for many years. I then, working for twenty odd minutes daily, learned the entire first book of 'Paradise Lost,' occupying 38 days in the process. After this training I went back to Victor Hugo's poem, and found that 158 additional lines (divided exactly as on the former occasion) took me 1511⁄2 minutes. other words, I committed my Victor Hugo to memory before the training at the rate of a line in 50 seconds, after the training at the rate of a line in 57 seconds, just the opposite result from that which the popular view would lead one to expect. But as I was perceptibly fagged with other work at the time of the second batch of Victor Hugo, I thought that might explain the retardation; so I persuaded several other persons to repeat the test." In Dr. W. H. Burnham, who tried the same method, learned for 8 days previous to training 16 lines of "In Memoriam" each day. This required 14 to 17 minutes daily, average 141 minutes. As training he committed daily for 26 consecutive days Schiller's translation of the second book of the "Eneid." This afforded an entirely different kind of material from the preliminary test. Returning to "In Memoriam," he found the average time for 16 lines to be 14 minutes-maximum 20, minimum 10. Mr. E. A. Pease made a preliminary test on "Idyls of the King," then trained himself on "Paradise Lost" (length of time and daily amount should be given, but are not). The average time for a given number of lines in the 6 days preliminary to the training was 148 minutes, for the test after training, 1488. In order to bring the matter before my students in a concrete way, I persuaded two of them to undertake a series of experiments, covering in one case 35 days and in the other 50 days. Five days in each case were taken for the preliminary tests, 5 for the final tests for comparison, and 25 and 40 days respectively for the drill. The preliminary tests consisted in the memorizing of miscellaneous matter, such as lists of nonsense syllables, lists of figures, selections of poetry, pieces of prose of varying degrees of difficulty, one being from Harper's Fourth Reader and the other from Hering's Memory, a list of twenty titles of unfamiliar books, and the names on a series of bottles holding chemical reagents. Each test was concluded as soon as any fatigue was noticeable. They thus varied somewhat in length. Only one test of a kind was taken at a given sitting, and the tests were throughout so varied and unexpected in character to the student that there was no possible chance for the effects of practice to enter into them. Both of the students were unfamiliar with chemical nomenclature, and the labels were partly in words and partly in symbols, e. g., HNO, and Hydric Acetate. When learning the list of unfamiliar book titles, only the backs of the books were exposed, so as to shut out as many associations as possible of names with books. It was, however, rendered easier by the sizes and colors than a list merely written or pronounced. There were 25 nonsense syllables in each list, and the number list contained 47 digits, arranged so as not to be in a serial order. Each was to be learned as a separate number. Thus there were tests in which as many associations as possible were removed, lists in which as many association helps as possible were included, and then intermediate lists. (Instead of figures and letters, arbitrary characters and forms might perhaps have been given to be drawn, and arbitrary sounds might have been uttered to be reproduced. This would have excluded association still more.) A list was regarded as memorized when it could be repeated or written (as the student chose), with a minimum number of mistakes -omissions, transpositions, or substitutions. It would have 'In James's tests it seems as if practice on the preliminaries and finals might affect the results. He discredits two other series recorded by him in which the preliminary practice and finals occupied fifteen and sixteen days respectively. See Principles of Psychology, I, p. 667. |